Two anti-terror lawsuits, one a groundbreaker
Two recently filed terror-related lawsuits deserve examination.
The media has been abuzz about the lawsuit recently filed by 125 American citizens against Iran, Syria and North Korea in Washington, DC. The plaintiffs allege that these state sponsors of terrorism are liable to them for providing material support to Hamas that enabled it to commit the Oct. 7 atrocities in southern Israel.
I was not surprised by the filing since we Americans have been using the US courts for more than 25 years to obtain some sort of justice for the murder and injuries suffered by loved ones in Mideast terror attacks.
I intentionally say “some sort of justice” because no lawsuit is capable of returning our loved ones to us, victims’ injuries never heal completely, and monetary compensation is a poor substitute for being able to hug your daughter again.
Twenty-seven years ago, when I and my attorney, Steven Perles, launched the first lawsuit brought under the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, I had no idea that our case would open the gates for what would amount to dozens of cases brought under that statute and subsequent laws.
While grateful for the new law, as Perles and I walked our way through crafting the complaint, we found the law to be toothless. We believed that the law was weak because the State Department was opposed to it, presumably because plaintiffs would be seeking redress against foreign nations which the State Department views as its bailiwick.
So, in the muggy Washington DC summer of 1996, Perles and I trudged through the halls of Congress looking for a sponsor to help make the changes the legislation needed. Support came from both sides of the aisle and the necessary adjustments to the Anti-Terrorism Act were passed into law, and we filed our lawsuit against the Islamic Republic of Iran, as well as some of its ministries and ministers.
• • •
Although the State Department was helpful in confirming that Iran was the financial sponsor of Palestine Islamic Jihad — the terrorist group that took credit for the April 9, 1995 bus bombing attack in which my daughter Alisa and seven others were murdered — we were on our own when it came to tracing funding from Iran to PIJ. But Perles did it and set out preparing my case for a trial that we believed would be five to 10 years down the road.
We expected Iran to fight back against our lawsuit. After all, the Islamic Republic was no stranger to US courts in commercial matters, and it fought back against lawsuits brought for breach of contract and other commercial claims. We relished the idea of obtaining “discovery” from Iran, where it would try to weasel out of its role as a sponsor of terror. We thought we would be able to display Iran’s dark underside. But it was not to be.
Much to our surprise (and I think that of the State Department, too), Iran did not defend itself in the lawsuit, and in March 1998, we were awarded almost $250 million in damages. The next several years of litigation with the United States and working the halls of Congress finally brought some financial recovery for our family and others harmed by Iran.
That’s all changed now as the 125 plaintiffs will obtain judgments and receive compensation not by slugging it out with the White House, and with the State and Treasury departments, as I did, but by making applications to the US Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund (USVSST Fund), established in 2015 to provide financial relief to victims of international state-sponsored terrorism. It’s a far cry from what my family had to go through.
• • •
But it is the second lawsuit that I think has more of a potential impact on victims’ rights and the fight against terror.
The case, filed in Washington state’s US District Court as Almog Meir Jan v. People Media Project D/B/A Palestine Chronicle, et als, seeks to hold an American-based nonprofit organization responsible under US law as a financial supporter of terrorism.
That’s right — an American-based charity is accused of assisting Hamas but in a way never seen before. Jan, who was kidnapped on Oct. 7 and held hostage for 246 days, was rescued by Israeli security forces from the home of one Abdallah Aljamal, “a Hamas operative and spokesperson.” According to Jan, Aljamal “was not just a Hamas operative and spokesperson; he was a “journalist” for” a “US-based, tax-exempt news organization” that set about to whitewash the Hamas atrocities.
There is precedent for Jan’s lawsuit aimed at bankrupting terror supporters. The Holy Land Foundation (HLF) was once the largest Islamic charity in the United States. However, it was designated as a terrorist organization in 2001 during the George W. Bush administration and shut down by the US government. In November 2008, five leaders of the HLF were convicted by a federal jury on charges of providing material support to Hamas, money laundering and filing false tax returns.
This case marked a significant action by the US government in its efforts to combat the financing of terrorism. The HLF’s assets were seized, and its operations were halted as part of the broader strategy to disrupt the financial networks supporting terrorist activities.
Then there’s the case of Sami Al-Arian, who established a fundraising organization called the Islamic Concern Project in 1988. This organization included a committee devoted to raising charity for Palestine. Additionally, Al-Arian was accused of using an academic think tank at the University of South Florida as a fundraising front and cover for Palestine Islamic Jihad. A member of that think tank, Ramadan Shallah, resigned in the fall of 1995 and turned up in Syria as the head of PIJ.
Kind of says something about Al-Arian’s organization, doesn’t it?
Al-Arian was tried by the Federal government in 2003 as a financial supporter of PIJ. Al-Arian pleaded guilty to a count of providing financial support for a terrorist organization, which resulted in his deportation to Turkey where he is able to freely spew his antisemitic vitriol. Thus, Jan’s case can serve as a terror victims’ landmark case if he can convince a jury of the allegations. Time will tell.
As I see it, the present system is broken. If victims are simply looking for compensation from the USVSST, claims could run through the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, as foreign claims were historically handled in the days before the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, and later, the so-called Flatow Amendment. In theory, to receive compensation, you are not supposed to need a lawyer.
Importantly, payments to victims through the USVSST have absolutely no deterrent effect on would-be state sponsors of terrorism; it’s not their money victims are getting.
